Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-11 MinutesLl r] L • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 11, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jerry Allred, Jana Lynn Britton, John Forney, John Harbison, Gary Head, Phyllis Johnson, Charles Nickle, Conrad Odom, and Bob Reynolds Alett Little, Don Bunn, Janet Johns, and Rich Lane. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1995 were amended to reflect Mandy Bunch under staff present. Minutes were approved as corrected. OLD BUSINESS REZONING R95-24 - NANCHAR AND MARJORIE S. BROOKS E OF GREGG ST, N OF US71 BYPASS, W OF 71 BUSINESS The first item on the agenda was the request was to rezone 38.10 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. REZONING R95-25 - NANCHAR AND MARJORIE S. BROOKS E OF GREGG ST, N OF US71 BYPASS, W OF 71 BUSINESS In conjunction with R95-24, the next item on the agenda was the request was to rezone 271.67 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The requests were amended as follows: REZONING R95-24 - NANCHAR AND MARJORIE S. BROOKS E OF GREGG ST, N OF US71 BYPASS, W OF 71 BUSINESS The amended request was to rezone approximately 59.48 acres from A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential Office. REZONING R95-25 - NANCHAR AND MARJORIE S. BROOKS E OF GREGG ST, N OF US71 BYPASS, W OF 71 BUSINESS The amended request was to rezone 10.61 acres from A-1 Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and 30.07 acres from A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial with restrictions totaling 40.68 acres. REZONING R95-25.1 - NANCHAR AND MARJORIE S. BROOKS E OF GREGG ST, N OF US71 BYPASS, W OF 71 BUSINESS The amended request was to rezone 200.62 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and 8.99 acres from A- 1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with restrictions totaling 209.61 acres. As a result of meetings with the developer's representatives and public hearings, both the developer and staff revised their positions and staff now recommends in favor of the amended requests. ,y Zd • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 2 Discussion ensued regarding the amount of acreage actually being rezoned. Ms. Little stated there was 84.04 acres of C-2 north of Mud Creek, 8.09 acres of C-2 with restrictive covenants west of the road, 6.07 acres of C-2 west of the road and north of Mud Creek, 91.28 acres of C-2 south of Mud Creek, 9.17 acres of R -O north of Mud Creek, 8.07 acres of C-1 northwest of the road, 19.75 acres of C-1 southwest of the road, 11.19 acres of R -O west of the road and east of Skull Creek, 24.35 acres of R -O west of Skull Creek, and 8.16 acres of C-1 west of Skull Creek. She stated total flood way within the Fayetteville city limits was 37.72 acres and the balance of the flood way was located in Johnson city limits. Ms. Little stated there was a total of 44 acres of R - O. Discussion ensued regarding flood way acreage. Additionally, Ms. Little stated she had received numerous calls from residents of Centerbrook Subdivision as well as Lenham Heights Subdivision expressing interest in the amended request and amended staff recommendation. She stated the callers wanted to make sure the Bills of Assurance and agreements with the developer would be upheld. Ms. Little stated that although one of the areas were changed from a C-2 request to a C-1 request this made uses more restrictive than the negotiated agreements between the residents and developers. She stated the residents requested that neither restaurants nor service stations be allowed adjacent to their properties and those were excluded under the Bills of Assurance. Ms. Little requested revised traffic information prior to the Council meeting if the subject rezonings were approved. • Ms. Little stated that since no decisions were to be made on street locations, she had requested street alignments be stricken from the chart. She stated the acreage for street right of way had not been taken off because street decisions were not being considered. Ms. Little stated the area north of Mud Creek and south of Spring Creek Park had access difficulty and now staff recommended an R -O zone allowing large, multi -story office buildings located in a park like setting. To the south, she stated there was a large area of C-2 which had some traffic problems with ingress and egress but was slated to be developed as hotel uses which generated about 1/4 of the traffic that a retail establishment would generate which should be handled at large scale development. She stated the orange area was designated as C-1. She stated staff had recommended R -O in the orange area but with proper street placement, neighborhood commercial could be compatible with the area and would allow for smaller scale retail uses but disallow duplex development which was objected to by the surrounding neighborhood groups. Further she stated R -O would not allow for the large box retail, malls, or hotel type uses. She stated R -O was the remaining balance of the area on the west side of the property which would allow a mix of residential and office uses. She stated since Gregg Street had not been updated the R -O zone with its less intense type uses would be appropriate for the area than a commercial zone. She stated the applicant did not plan to develop as residential. North of Mud Creek was recommended C-2 which is best suited due to the routes of ingress and egress. The area adjoining Lenham Heights had a restrictive Bill of Assurance. Ms. Little stated the street locations would be addressed at large scale development phase. Discussion ensued regarding proposed street connections and designation of same on the conceptual map. Discussion ensued regarding a letter submitted by Lois Imhoff who expressed concern regarding the school district boundaries between Fayetteville and Springdale and tax monies generated for county wide taxes and school • millages. Ms. Little stated all sales tax goes to the city of Fayetteville. Discussion ensued regarding the C-2 hotel zone area. Ms. Little stated it was a visible, high profile area which • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 3 I would lend itself to hotel development but there was a problem with limited ingress and egress Ms. Britton inquired that if any part of the property to be rezoned to R -O, would housing be a use by right and Ms. Little stated R -O would allow single family residences and duplexes as use by right. Ms. Johnson inquired regarding Van Asche connecting to the west part of the subject property and Mr. Milholland stated it connected near the middle of the C-1 zone. Ms. Little stated a Van Asche connection was paramount due to the connection at the bypass and it is also the northern most line of the city limits of Fayetteville. Ms. Britton inquired regarding whether or not there were three rezonings, one for C-2, one for R -O, and one for C- I and Ms. Little stated they were grouped in that manner for simplicity and to detail total acreage per zone. Ms. Britton stated she felt this was a too intensive use for the subject area and further stated she would like to see residential development. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve RZ95-24 rezoning 44.71 acres to R -O. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Ms. Britton and Mr. Forney voted against the motion. • MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve RZ95-25 rezoning 36.69 acres to C-1. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated she had requested C-1 zoning but configuration of the subject proposal had the potential to contribute to strip development. Ms. Little stated a Bill of Assurance had been offered and accepted on a portion of the C-1 limiting uses by right. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Ms. Britton and Mr. Forney voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve RZ95-25.1 rezoning 190.65 acres to C-2. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Ms. Little stated a Bill of Assurance had been offered and accepted on a potion of the C-2 limiting uses by right. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Ms. Britton, Mr. Forney, and Mr. Harbison voted against the motion. 40 M 6W • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 4 REZONING R95-27 - N. GLENN SOWDER S OF NORTH ST, W OF NORTH GREGG The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request submitted by N. Glenn Sowder for property located south of North Street, west of North Gregg and contains 2.89 acres zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. In conjunction with the rezoning request was a conditional use request to allow up to 40% of 16,820 square feet of restaurant use within the R -O zone. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request based on a finding that neighborhood commercial is encouraged as part of the overall development plan of the city. Further staff recommended approval of the conditional use subject to: 1. Signage in accordance with the sign ordinance at Section 158.49 limiting signs in R -O districts to 16 square feet. 2. Minimization of lighting and downward direction of the light source limiting the impact on residences. 3. Compliance with the parking lot ordinance at time of large scale development 4. Installation of appropriate screening at large scale development phase. • 5. Conditions as set forth at Section 160.195(c). Ms. Johnson inquired regarding the difference in density between R-2 and R -O. Ms. Little stated trip generation for apartment use equaled 8 per day and office trip generation was 20 trips per day. Further she stated there was a difference in calculation between dwelling units and office square footage. Regarding eating place uses, a 9000 square foot restaurant would have a maximum turnover rate of 500 trips per day. Ms. Johnson noted traffic concerns included the narrowing of North Street and Gregg Street from 4 lanes to 2 lanes to the east and south. Mr. Sowder distributed two maps and a picture of architectural design and stated the requested rezoning follows the encouraged infill development and village concept. He further stated the request, if approved, would decrease trips per day by 50% versus full development of current R-2 zoning which would allow 68-69 rental units and 161 parking spaces. He stated his development experience lead him to the opinion the traffic impact would be greater than the proposed R -O zoning. Mr. Sowder stated his rezoning request from R-2 to R -O included a total of 34 unit with 12 units of office/retail space and 22 unit of residential. He stated the proposal would required 114 parking spaces including 37 with turf block. He stated the eating place/retail space would be no more than 1800 square feet suitable for a coffee house, delicatessen, or a french bakery. He stated no more than 3 units would be economically feasible for food service. Mr. Sowder offered a Bill of Assurance stating no alcoholic beverages would be served on the subject property. Additionally he offered a Bill of Assurance stating a 100 feet by 100 feet section of land at the comer of Gregg and Adam Streets would be dedicated as permanent green space maintained by him or his estate, heirs, or assigns. • Mr. Sowder requested the R -O rezoning request be reduced to 428 feet along North Street with 200 feet of frontage on Gregg. Discussion ensued. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Sowder requested the conditional use request be amended to reflect the reduction from 16,820 square feet of restaurant/retail space to 1800 square feet of eating places/retail space. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding the proffered green space. Ms. Little stated maintenance of the green space normally required the formation of a homeowners' association or the City's Parks Department could agree to take over the maintenance. Further she stated the dedication would be required to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council. Discussion ensued regarding the designation of proposed structures on the map including design standards associated with same. Discussion ensued regarding turf block and additional traffic concerns. Mr. Nickle requested clarification regarding the discrepancy between trip generation data and Ms. Little stated the trip generation report reflected maximum numbers of square footage and nondesignated hours of operation. Further she stated in light of the amended request those numbers did not accurately reflect the correlation. Discussion ensued regarding eating places/retail space. Mr. Sowder stated he would agreed not to allow one 8000 square foot food service use and would agreed that eating places/retail spaces would not exceed 2000 square feet and offered a Bill of Assurance regarding the stipulations. Discussion ensued regarding buildable area and parking requirements associated with R -O zoning • Discussion ensued regarding parks fees. Ms. Little stated the green space dedication would exceed the required amount 2 %, times. Ms. Britton stated park land issues would be addressed at the development phase and inquired regarding the assessment formula. Discussion ensued regarding traffic flow and the rationale that Neighborhood Commercial reduced automobile traffic. Ms. Johnson requested the staff recommendation on the amended rezoning request. Ms. Little stated the limited neighborhood commercial ordinance encouraged the proposed development and additionally the 2010 and 2020 Plans supported the proposed development. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding permissible uses under R -O. Ms. Britton noted that under R -O, triplexes would require a conditional use. Ms. Little stated the conditional use could further be amended to request triplexes and Mr. Sowder requested same. Rose Gergerich residing at 220 Adams opposed the proposed rezoning. Edee Olivera residing at 553 Hawthorne opposed the proposed rezoning Joe McFarran residing at 408 W. North opposed the proposed rezoning. Don Steinkraust opposed the proposed rezoning on the basis that property values might be decreased. Perry Johnston residing at 524 W. Prospect opposed the proposed rezoning on the basis of noise and atmospheric pollution. • Bob Brandon residing at 649 Wilson Ave opposed the proposed rezoning on the basis that the street design standards would not accommodate increased traffic. ; 5% • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 6 Tom Lindacam residing at 651 Wilson Avenue opposed the proposed rezoning. Mr. Frankenburger residing at 412 W. Prospect opposed the proposed rezoning. Charles Axtell opposed the proposed rezoning. Mr. Pierce residing at 681 Wilson opposed the proposed rezoning on the basis of commercial encroachment in a residential zone. Tim Ernst residing at 411 Patricia Lane opposed the proposed rezoning. Dennis Becker residing on Tangleberry opposed the proposed rezoning. Ramona Tugwell opposed the proposed rezoning. Justin Mingle opposed the proposed rezoning on the basis of commercial encroachment in a residential zone. Susan Bell residing at 812 N. Woolsey opposed the proposed rezoning and contended that the Wilson Park area was already a "village concept' development and additional effort to create more neighborhood commercial was not necessary or wanted. Carol Gregory residing at 206 Adams opposed the proposed rezoning. • Robert Wilkes residing at 320 North Street opposed the proposed rezoning and presented a petition of opposition signed by the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association (available in the planning department.) Discussion ensued regarding the audience comments Ms. Johnson stated her concern over the traffic problems but stated it was not fair to place the burden of fixing the problem on Mr. Sowder. She encouraged the neighborhood to consider all options for development of the subject property. Further, she stated she supported the proposed rezoning. Mr. Harbison stated he had made calculations on trip generations derived from reduced traffic and stated he supported the proposed rezoning. Mr. Forney expressed concern over the impact of large commercial tracts such as the 360 acres south of the NWA Mall. Further, he stated he did not support the rezoning. Mr. Reynolds stated his concept of the village concept development applied to development of new subdivision. He stated he would not support the rezoning. Mr. Odom stated he would support the amended rezoning request allowing limited neighborhood commercial development in the subject area. Ms. Britton stated she would not support the request on the grounds the proposed are not permitted uses under the limited neighborhood commercial zone ordinance. • Mr. Allred stated the larger issue was that citizens do not support the village concept and infill development. MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Nickle made a motion to deny the rezoning RZ95-27. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. (Conditional Use CU95-28 was not considered due to failure of request of RZ95-27.) 40 A'66 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 8 NEW BUSINESS REZONING RZ95-33 - WALTON ARTS CENTER BILL MITCHELL - NW CORNER OF MEADOW AND WEST STREETS The rezoning request was submitted by Bill Mitchell on behalf of the Walton Arts Center for property located at the northwest corner of Meadow and West Streets. The request is to rezone the property from 1-1, Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial, to C-3, Central Business Commercial. Ms. Johnson stated the conditional use request was withdrawn. Ms. Johnson further corrected zoning to the west was I-1 with mixed office retail (Gregory Center) to the east was C-3 Uptown School and single family home. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve RZ95-33. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1. Ms. Johnson abstained. r L 0 C IN • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-31 - WALTON ARTS CENTER BILL MITCHELL - NW CORNER OF MEADOW AND WEST STREETS The conditional use was submitted by Bill Mitchell on behalf of the Walton Arts Center for property located at the northwest corner of Meadow and West Streets. The request was to allow 55 parking spaces to occur on the city's property east and north of the site on West Street. This item was withdrawn. E • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 10 REZONING RZ95-34 - POWERHOUSE SEAFOOD BILL UNDERWOOD - 112 N. UNIVERSITY The next item on the agenda was rezoning request RZ95-34 submitted by Bill Underwood on behalf of Powerhouse Seafood located at 112 N. University. The request was to rezone the property from I-1, Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial to C-3, Central Business Commercial. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. Ms. Britton inquired if there was an area of industrial left in the subject area. Ms. Little responded there was 1-1 zoning in the area with power lines. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approved RZ95-34. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • 0 �43 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 1 I REZONING RZ95-35 - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ALETT LITTLE - S OF DICKSON, W OF WEST STREET The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request RZ95-35 submitted by Alett Little on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located south of Dickson Street, and west of West Street. The request was to rezone the property from I-1, Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial to C-3, Central Business Commercial. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approved RZ95-35. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. is 626 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-25 - BILL AND SHARON STILES 117 W. ROCK The conditional use request was withdrawn by Mr. Bill Stiles. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE CU -95-26 - FIESTA SQUARE CINEMAS STUCKEY BROTHERS ENTERPRISES - W OF 71 BUSINESS The next item on the agenda was the conditional use request submitted by Stuckey Brothers Enterprises on behalf of Fiesta Square Cinemas. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and the request is for a parking lot which is necessary to permit expansion of the existing facility. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use subject to the following: Submittal and review of the parking lot development plans through large scale development criteria and compliances with provisions of same. 2. Issuance of a building permit prior to construction of the requested parking lot. Lighting directed away from the houses to the west. Ms. Britton inquired as to the need for additional parking. Ms. Little stated the original large scale development approved parking additional structures which currently are not developed but should be reserved for that expansion. Further she stated this parking requirement was based on the 1200 seats in the additional to the auditorium. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the proposed expansion to the auditorium. Ms. Little stated the addition would eliminate 60 of the existing parking spaces. • Mr. Forney inquired if the existing parking lot would be required to meet the new parking lot ordinance. Ms. Little stated the new parking would meet the standard but the existing parking would not be required to meet the standards of the new ordinance. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve conditional use CU95-26 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds stated consideration should be given to a northern exit during large scale development phase. Discussion ensued. Mr. Forney inquired regarding ownership of the auditorium. Discussion ensued. Upon roll call, the motion was approved with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. W a61 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 14 LOT SPLIT LS95-29 - JULIAN ARCHER HALSELL ROAD, E OF CROSS AVENUE The next item on the agenda was a request for lot splits 1, 2, and 3 submitted by Julian Archer for property located at Halsell Road, east of Cross Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommended approval of the lot splits subject to the following: L The submittal of the lot splits to the Plat Review Committee and the granting of easements as may be required. 2. Payment to the City of the cost of widening both Halsell Road and Cross Avenue to 13 feet on his side. 3. Construction of improvements to Markham Road to be done at the time Lot 4 is developed. 4. Construction of sidewalks on Halsell Street. 5. Construction of an 8" water line along Halsell to serve the lots which face Halsell and the installation of a fire hydrant. • 6. Approval of a tree preservation plan. 7. Extension of sewer to serve the lots. 8. Payment of parks fees for three (3) single family lots. Ms. Johnson noted the request was for three lot splits creating 4 lots. Ms. Little clarified staff recommendation 3 to include streets, curb and gutter, and sidewalk Mr. Nickle inquired regarding the remaining lot facing Markham and whether or not it would required a park fee. Ms. Little stated park fees were only charged on lots which are created. Mr. Archer objected to staff recommendation number 2 and number 4. Further he expressed reservations on staff recommendation number 5 and number 7. Ms. Little stated those were standard requirements and discussion ensued regarding the use of the recommended contribution. Mr. Archer distributed photographs and a letter from Kevin Crosson to Ms. Lee Schaper. He stated improvement construction to the streets on Cross and Halsell was normal maintenance and was coincidental to the requested lot splits. He stated the above referenced letter required only a 20 feet widening of Cross and it was inappropriate for him to finance a 13 feet widening of a city street. Mr. Archer stated he would grant a 5 feet right of way without compensation and contended the city should do the normal street maintenance without cost to him. Further he stated it seemed unusual for him to be required to bear the cost of normal street maintenance. Ms. Little stated the recommendations were consistent with requirements for • any lot split. Regarding construction of sidewalks along Halsell, Mr. Archer objected on the grounds that no sidewalks were 64,99 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 15 currently in the area and same did not comply with the neighborhood's character. He stated the lots were around 1 1/4 acres which would not significantly increase the population or foot traffic. He stated the street to the east was steep and he did not feel the City would construct a sidewalk in that area. He alternatively proposed that if a sidewalk was required, a chat walk could be constructed as suggested in the letter from Mr. Crosson. Discussion ensued and Ms. Little stated the only exception to the sidewalk requirement would be an asphalt trail as part of the city wide trail system. Further Ms. Little stated upon passage of the Master Street Plan, all collector and local street would have sidewalks on both sides. She stated the small 26 feet street would be the only streets with sidewalks on one side. Regarding construction of the water line and fire hydrant, Mr. Archer stated there was a 2 inch water line which would serve the houses on the created lots. He stated if a fire hydrant was required to serve not only the created lots but the existing houses in the area, the city should pay half the cost of line installation. Discussion ensued regarding water line upgrading in the area, minimum size line upgrades and cost involved with same. Ms. Little stated a 2 inch water line was inadequate for fire protection and a 6 inch line was acceptable if it was a looped line. Discussion ensued. Mr. Nickle noted the City Engineer was not present to respond to cost participation requests. Regarding the sewer line, Mr. Archer stated all the lots would be on city sewer but requested the staff recommendation not reflect that an extension of the sewer line was required. He stated there was existing sewer on Halsell. He suggested the house lines could be used to connect to the sewer. Ms. Little stated the requirement • stated that any time city sewer comes within 600 feet you were required to tie on. Further, she stated each house must have its own individual service line to the public line and service lines could not cross two separate lots. Mr. Nickle noted individual service lines were a county health department requirement. Mr. Archer stated it was his opinion that others in the neighborhood objected to the staff recommendations and commented that he had only received the staff report at noon of the same day. Mr. Nickle inquired if Mr. Archer would like to table the request in light of the lack of time he had to prepare for the meeting. Mr. Archer stated he would like to proceed to a vote. Mr. Len Schaper spoke in support of the lot split but opposed the requirement for street and sidewalk improvements based on the above referenced letter from Mr. Crosson. Further he objected to required improvements based on the character of the neighborhood and stated staff recommendation 3 was a spot improvement. Discussion ensued regarding the need for sidewalks and requiring any and all property developers to be held to the requirements and city standard. Ms. Little noted and called the attention of the Commission to the Code of Ordinance of the City of Fayetteville at Section 159.033 - Required offsite improvements. Mr. Reynolds stated all developers are required to comply with staff recommendations and it would not be fair to waive any requirements of this developer. Mr. Nickle again requested input from the City Engineer Discussion ensued regarding the requested reduced contribution and whether or not, in fact, the street would be • widened to 31 feet or if the contribution request would be used to offset improvements planned for the subject streets. Aof • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Allred inquired as to the authority city staff had to waive the construction of sidewalks to a pea gravel path. Ms. Little stated Section 98.66 of the Code of Ordinance gave the city council the right to waive sidewalk requirements but she stated she would note Mr. Allred's objection to Mr. Crosson. Mr. Archer stated he had no plans to development lot 4 and further stated he was the owner of all the property on Markham hill and he planned to leave it in a natural state. He discussed his family history and his previous land development experience. Discussion ensued regarding the waiver procedure. Mr. Forney inquired regarding whether or not the City was planning to upgrade substandard streets in the subject area and Ms. Little stated work was in progress on Cross Street and plans were in the works for Halsell. Mr. Nickle stated the request from Mr. Archer was for a contribution, not to perform the improvement. Discussion ensued. Mr. Nickle stated the recommendation would be required regardless of the city's schedule to perform improvements. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding circumvention of the subdivision process and favoritism playing a part of same. She stated the agricultural nature of the subject area was in the past and the area was being developed, therefore, the need for sidewalks was present. Mr. Odom stated there was a set of standards which needed to be adhered to and further expressed his concern regarding favoritism. • Discussion ensued regarding parking along Halsell Street and Mr. Archer noted the area was no parking and if the neighbors wanted they could have the violators towed. Ms. Marion Orton spoke in support of the lot split but objected to sidewalks and street improvements. She objected to Mr. Archer having to install a fire hydrant. Ms. Little noted lot splits were not even mentioned in the code of ordinance and lots splits were actually a waiver of subdivision regulations at Section 159.46. Discussion ensued. Ms. Orton contended the requirements were applied discriminately Connie Kramer representing Julie Rodgers residing on the east side of Cross opposed sidewalk construction stating concrete sidewalks would destroy the character of the neighborhood. Lee Schaper residing at 1940 Pratt Drive supported the lot split but opposed sidewalk development. Mr. Archer requested the matter be tabled and Mr. Nickle objected to tabling the item due to the fact Mr. Archer refused to table the item earlier. Discussion ensued. Mr. Forney requested staff briefing on the waiver procedure and Ms. Little read Section 159.33 of the Code of Ordinances. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little noted Mr. Archer had received the exact same staff recommendation on May 17, 1995 at which time he withdrew the request. She clarified the only change from the May 17 report was Mr. Archer's street improvement contribution had been reduced. . Discussion ensued regarding sidewalk requirements under Section 98. MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 17 Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the request subject to staff recommendations. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.1. Ms. Johnson abstained. • alb aql • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 18 LOT SPLIT LS95-30 - JULIAN ARCHER NW CORNER HASKELL HEIGHTS AND SANG STREET The next item on the agenda was a request for lot split submitted by Julian Archer for property located at Halsell Road, east of Cross Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommended approval of the lot split subject to the following: 1. Granting of an additional street right of way of 5 feet, 2. Granting of a water easement for a 24" line on the west side of Sang Street if none exists, 3. Improvement of one-half of Sang Street to City street standards, 4. Payment of Parks fees for one lot, and 5. Construction of a sidewalk along Sang Street Mr. Archer objected to recommendations 3 and 5. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not Sang was on the Master Street Plan and whether or not same would be is widened. Mr. Archer stated he lived on Sang and had no plans for future development. He noted the street was a dead end. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little noted the requirement on Sang required more than the requirement for paving Halsell because the plans on Halsell and Cross were not to improve those to full city standards. Discussion ensued regarding the easement and right of way. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the lot split subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Schaper noted there was a 25% grade along Sang at the connection point and asked the Commission to consider that in requiring Mr. Archer to improve the street. He stated the lot split requirements made no sense to him in this case. Intense discussion ensued regarding the responsibility of the Planning Commission, requirements of subdivisions versus lot splits, and sidewalk construction. William Feldman residing at 16 North Sang supported the lot split with no sidewalks. Mr. Archer stated he was not the usual property owner or developer and assured the Commission he would not develop Markham hill. He stated his legal residence was Des Moines, Iowa. Mr. Archer stated he would make the contribution but requested the improvements be waived. Ms. Johnson inquired if he would make the contributions but request waiver of the improvements and Mr. Archer agreed. Mr, . Nickle suggested that additional information be provided to the Commission from the City Engineer's office and City Attorney's office before consideration of such a waiver. . Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 19 Upon roll call, the motion was approved with a vote of 8-0-1. Ms. Johnson abstained. • • ale • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 20 LOT SPLIT LS95-31 - CHARLES & DANNA BELL 3701 GULLEY ROAD The next item on the agenda was the second lot split request submitted by Charles & Danna Bell for property located at 3701 Gulley Road. The property is located outside the City Limits. Staff recommended approval of the second lot split. Ms. Little stated the lot was outside the city limits and therefore no city streets or park fees were required. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve LS95-31. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. CJ • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 21 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LSD95-33 - GYNETECH DENNIS BECKER - S OF SUNRISE MOUNTAIN RD, W OF HWY 71B The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Gynetech submitted by Dennis Becker on behalf of Gynetech, Inc. and Gil Worthen for property located south of Sunrise Mountain Road, west of Hwy 71 B. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 15.84 acres. Staff recommended approval of the large scale development subject to: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Approval of a Grading and Drainage Plan, 3. Approval of a Tree Preservation Plan, 4. Construction of one-half of Sunrise Mountain Road to city street standards, and 5. Construction of sidewalks on Sunrise Mountain Road and Highway 71. Discussion ensued regarding pavement options to Sunrise Mountain Road. Mr. Decker stated as requested he had contacted the adjoining property owner, Ms. McBride who had declined to contribute to paving based on undue • hardship. Further Mr. Decker reported Mr. Venable had agreed for the city to enter into a contact to pay for paving of 440' of Sunrise Mountain Road. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the LSD95-33 subject to staff recommendations and pavement of 1/2 of Sunrise Mountain Road. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. 11 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 22 PRELIMINARY PLAT PP95-18 - PINE CREST PHASE III BMP DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM, N OF FLORENCE The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for Pine Crest Phase III submitted by Kurt Jones, with Northwest Engineers on behalf of BMP Development, Inc. for property located east of Salem, north of Florence. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 1.97 acres with 5 proposed lots. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments. 2. Approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage. 3. Approval of a final grading plan and drainage report. 4. Approval of the tree preservation plan, 5. Construction of sidewalks on both sides of the street. 6. Improvement of one-half of Sycamore Street to city street standards. • Regarding Sycamore Street, Ms. Little stated the current street was not centered in the right of way but the developer had agreed to dedicate an additional 9 feet of right of way to the north to correct the problem. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the PP95-18 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved with unanimous vote of 9-0-0. 0 g11 A14 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 23 REZONING RZ95-28 - KENNETH MOURTON NW CORNER OF CATO SPRINGS RD AND GARLAND AVE The last item on the agenda was the rezoning request submitted by Kenneth Mourton for property located at the northwest comer of Cato Springs Road and Garland Avenue. The request was to rezone 4.06 acres from I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial, to R-2 Medium Density Residential. In conjunction with and subject to the approval of the rezoning, a conditional use for a child care facility was requested. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning on the basis that it was consistent with the General Plan 2010. Ms. Johnson inquired regarding a discrepancy in acreage amounts in the staff report. Ms. Little stated there had been a problem with the legal description. Mr. Mourton stated subtracting the right of way, the acreage totalled 3.5 acres. Ms. Little stated the subject tract was to be joined with an adjacent piece which is zoned for multifamily to accommodate the 128 dwelling units. Mr. Mourton clarified there would be a total of 52 units. Ms. Britton inquired regarding a buffer between the adjoining I-1 zone and the industrial zone. Ms. Little stated screening requirements were normally incumbent upon more commercial or industrial uses and it would not be fair • for the residential use to be responsible for same. Further she stated the issue would be addressed at the large scale development phase. Ms. Kathleen Dawson inquired regarding street widening and whether or not the proposed development would be low income housing. Discussion ensued. Further Ms. Dawson inquired regarding the conditional use for child care. Discussion ensued regarding the difference in density calculation of R-2 and R-1.5 zoning. Discussion ensued regarding the maximum development of the subject tract. Mr. Nickle inquired as to the uses by right in ]- 1. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wayne Paschal inquired regarding parking and Ms. Little stated that would be addressed at large scale development phase. Ms. Linda Nevell opposed the proposed rezoning and presented a petition (on file in the Planning Department.) MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve RZ95-28 subject to maximum density of 52 units. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Mr. Mourton objected to the maximum density requirement. • Discussion ensued regarding the appeal procedure if the maximum density needed to increased. SUBSTITUTE MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 24 Mr. Head made a motion to approve RZ95-28. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved with a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Nickle voted against the motion. • • WPI • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1995 Page 25 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-32 - KENNETH MOURTON CORNER OF CATO SPRINGS RD AND GARLAND The last item on the agenda was the conditional use for a child care facility submitted by Kenneth Mourton for property located at the comer of Cato Springs Road and Garland. Staff recommended approval of the request on the basis that it is compatible with uses allowed in R-2 zoning. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. r L 0 • • ING- Comm IS5K3N VOTING LOG FOR q l 1195 , TFf=F: biT e I Zb4ms; -f L.4tiF L-3-0 TZ -O 1-Z O ' ffFmVeD A91P�q® AP=MtP 9 MOTION SECOND ALLRED f-esprT Y� BRITTON� FORNEY HARBISON HEAD \/E5 JOHNSON Y� NICKLE F v Y6 Y6 ODOM Af5% 5 6Y REYNOLDS yes , TFf=F: biT e I Zb4ms; -f L.4tiF L-3-0 TZ -O 1-Z O ' ffFmVeD A91P�q® AP=MtP 9 .• C� J R owklImG (h mmisslcnl VOTING LOG FOR q l 119.5 MOTION M I CKE a -F oAD SECOND ACCRED fS BRITTON I� \II Y yes FORNEY \' y� VU5 HARBISON HEAD JOHNSON y hffiThw YE5 NICKLE ODOM REYNOLDS L� • rL-FMMIN.G Comm►SSIQN VOTING LOG FOR Q I ► 95 fv Q MOTION SECOND ALLRED BRITTON FORNEY HARBISON HEAD JOHNSON / NICKLE 7 es y ODOM I �� REYNOLDS Q • PLA-Nmw, (IIY missioN VOTING LOG FOR 9 I I 9S a.s."o =� 111 A i� MOTION SECOND &lTfoN ALLRED Y l Y BRITTON 1� �/ s FORNEY � V� y s HARBISON \/� va� HEAD JOHNSON N mw AffMN NICKLE ODOM REYNOLDS \l� �K YES a.s."o =� 111 A i� • • A-AMMING (hmmissuJ VOTING LOG FOR 'q I I MOTION (OQom ALLf�:(D flW I X41 ,�Le Awa�p SECOND I�Aum / cm ALLRED ylr=s v� � Y BRITTON VES FORNEY \ I t5: yes V Y HARBISON \ i� yc5 HEAD JOHNSON \ �. Yes NICKLE ODOM \/ \/ dy REYNOLDS `10 0 9.0.6 R-